P. V. Grasso

The applicant employee association applied for certification and was required to establish its status as a trade union under the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the steps taken to form the association, including adopting a constitution, electing officers, and setting dues, were sufficient to establish it as a trade union.

Although membership cards were signed before the constitution was officially adopted, the Board held that subsequent acts consistent with membership, such as ratifying the constitution at a general meeting, validated the membership evidence.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant union applied for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer failed to file a response and made a last-minute telephone request for an adjournment on the morning of the hearing without notifying the applicant.

The Board denied the adjournment request, noting the statutory requirement for expeditious resolution of such applications.

Proceeding on the merits, the Board found the respondent had failed to make reasonable or expeditious efforts to conclude a collective agreement and directed that the first collective agreement be settled by arbitration.

In an application for certification by the Operating Engineers, the Ontario Labour Relations Board determined the composition of the bargaining unit for the purposes of the count.

Applying the Gilvesey test, the Board examined the duties performed by several disputed individuals on the application date.

The Board found that certain mechanics and dependent contractors who spent a majority of their time performing bargaining unit work on the application date were included in the unit, while others who primarily performed labourers' work or worked outside the geographic area were excluded.

Having resolved the list of employees, the Board found the union had the requisite membership support and issued certificates for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector and all other sectors in the relevant geographic area.

The applicant union sought certification for employees of Air-Dale Limited, an airline subsidiary of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission.

The respondent and objectors raised the issue of constitutional jurisdiction.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined that the respondent's operations, which involved providing scheduled air services under a Transport Canada licence, fell squarely within the federal Parliament's exclusive jurisdiction over aeronautics.

Consequently, the provincial Labour Relations Act did not apply, and the application for certification was dismissed.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that the respondents, Agincourt and KNK, constituted one employer.

The principal of Agincourt, a unionized electrical contractor, ceased operations and shortly thereafter incorporated KNK, a non-union firm carrying on the same business.

The respondents conceded the legal requirements for a related employer declaration were met but argued the union's delay in bringing the application should bar relief.

The Board held that delay alone does not bar a section 1(4) declaration, as the provision is designed to prevent the erosion of bargaining rights through corporate restructuring.

However, given the union's delay, the Board granted the declaration but limited its retrospective effect to commercial activities entered into after the union filed the application.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer violated the statutory freeze period under subsection 79(1) of the Labour Relations Act by unilaterally reducing the work week from five days to four, and then to three days, due to productivity concerns.

The employer argued the union was estopped from complaining because it did not explicitly object when informed of the changes.

The Board applied the reasonable expectations test and found that employees would not reasonably expect a reduction in hours due to productivity issues, especially when the issue was being negotiated.

The Board rejected the estoppel argument, holding that the statute strictly requires union consent for such changes.

The employer was ordered to compensate the affected employees.

The parties agreed to the settlement by arbitration of their first collective agreement pursuant to section 40a of the Labour Relations Act.

The primary issues in dispute were wages and retroactivity.

The employer proposed a wage grid with discretionary merit pay and a productivity bonus plan, while the union proposed a single rate for each classification.

The Board rejected the employer's discretionary merit and productivity plans as inappropriate for a legislated first collective agreement, but awarded a wage grid with a start rate and an increment upon completion of the 90-day probationary period.

The Board also awarded a retroactive payment of either a $350 lump sum or a calculated retroactive amount up to a maximum of $650.

The applicant union requested the appointment of a Labour Relations Officer under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act to examine the employee status of thirteen individuals reclassified from 'Directors' to 'Consultants' following a workplace reorganization.

The respondent employer argued the union failed to provide sufficient particulars.

The Board found the union provided sufficient information to define the issue and authorized a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into the duties and responsibilities of the disputed individuals.

The union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of security guards.

The sole issue was whether a security supervisor, Mr. Batchelor, should be excluded from the unit under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act because he exercised managerial functions.

The Board found that Mr. Batchelor functioned as a 'lead hand' rather than a manager, as he did not have independent authority to hire, fire, set schedules, or approve overtime.

The Board concluded he was an employee within the meaning of the Act and included him in the bargaining unit.

The Board also dismissed the employer's request to reconsider an interim evidentiary ruling.

The applicant employee applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The Board dismissed the application with respect to the non-ICI sector as untimely, having been brought less than six months after certification.

For the ICI sector, the union argued the Board should exercise its discretion to refuse to entertain the application due to the short time since certification.

The Board held it had no such discretion under section 103(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act because the union's prior certification application was not 'unsuccessful'.

Despite the applicant having admitted to lying to the Board in the prior certification proceedings regarding the origination of a petition, the Board found his testimony in the current proceeding plausible and concluded the new petition was a voluntary expression of employee wishes.

A representation vote was ordered.

The applicant trade union applied for certification in the construction industry.

A group of employees filed a petition objecting to the certification.

The Board found that the objecting employees, who were unrepresented, failed to adduce first-hand evidence regarding the origination and circulation of the petition, and failed to account for its custody.

Consequently, the Board gave no weight to the petition.

As the union demonstrated membership support of more than 55 percent of the employees in the bargaining unit, the Board granted the application and issued the certificates.

The applicant union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor was laid off in violation of the collective agreement.

The respondent employer argued that the collective agreement did not apply because the grievor was working in a pallet yard as part of a rehabilitation program for injured workers, which it claimed was not construction industry work.

The Board found that the collective agreement contained a latent ambiguity regarding its application to the pallet yard work.

Relying on extrinsic evidence, including the deduction of union dues and the application of trade jurisdictions in the pallet yard, the Board concluded that the parties intended the collective agreement to apply.

The grievance was allowed.

The complainant alleged that his employment was terminated contrary to section 24(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act because he planned to circulate a petition requesting a lunchroom.

The respondent employer maintained that the complainant was discharged for overall poor performance, including chronic lateness and complaints from co-workers.

The Board found that the employer had no knowledge of the petition activity and that the termination was not motivated by any health and safety concerns.

The Board also declined to exercise its discretion under section 24(7) to modify the penalty, as there was no nexus between the employer's actions and the complainant's health and safety activity.

The complaint was dismissed, with one Board Member dissenting.

The complainants alleged that the respondent Union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by negotiating and signing a collective agreement for franchised stores without submitting it to the membership for ratification.

The Board found that the Union's officers honestly and reasonably believed that a prior agreement, which had been ratified by the membership, authorized them to enter into the franchise agreement without a further vote.

The Board concluded that the Union did not act in a manner that was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, and dismissed the complaint.

The applicant employee sought to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights under sections 57 and 60 of the Labour Relations Act.

The bargaining rights derived from a voluntary recognition agreement, and no collective agreement had been signed.

The Board dismissed the section 57 application, ruling that certification is a pre-condition to such an application.

Regarding the section 60 application, the Board found that the union was entitled to represent the employees at the time the voluntary recognition agreement was entered into, as the membership cards submitted were sufficient evidence of majority support.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that Kent Acoustics Limited and J.L. Acoustics Ltd. constituted a single employer.

The principal of Kent had closed the business in 1981 and later purchased a share in J.L. in 1987, eventually becoming its sole owner.

The Board found that the two companies were engaged in related activities under the common control and direction of the same principal.

Despite the gap in time between the operations, the Board exercised its discretion to grant the declaration to preserve the union's bargaining rights, binding J.L. to the applicable collective agreements.

The union applied for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that section 40a was unavailable because it had previously been party to a collective agreement with a displaced union.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that section 40a applies where the specific parties have been unable to effect their first collective agreement.

On the merits, the Board found that the collective bargaining process was unsuccessful due to the employer's failure to make reasonable or expeditious efforts to conclude an agreement, particularly its refusal to negotiate following union concessions, and its uncompromising bargaining position without reasonable justification.

The Board directed the settlement of the first collective agreement by arbitration.

One Board member dissented.

The complainant, an occupational health nurse, alleged she was discharged contrary to section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after refusing to return keys to the employer's medical files during a labour dispute, citing confidentiality concerns.

The employer claimed she was fired for insubordination and abusive language.

The Board found the complainant was genuinely attempting to comply with the confidentiality provisions of the Act.

While her abusive language warranted discipline, discharge was excessive.

The Board ordered the discharge removed from her record and substituted a written warning.

The complainant union and employee alleged that the respondent college discharged the employee because he supported and was expected to testify in another employee's grievance arbitration, contrary to section 80(1) of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act.

The Board found that the employee's attitude and performance had deteriorated significantly after he was bumped from a full-time position, characterized by chronic lateness and insubordination.

The Board concluded that the discharge was the inevitable result of the employee's poor conduct and insubordination, culminating in a confrontation with his supervisor, and was not motivated by anti-union animus.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union referred grievances to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent employers violated the collective agreement by reducing their hourly remittances to the union's benefit fund.

The employers argued that the enactment of the Employer Health Tax Act, which eliminated OHIP premiums and imposed a payroll tax, frustrated the collective agreement and resulted in unjust enrichment for the fund, as the fund no longer had to pay OHIP premiums.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the collective agreement required a fixed hourly remittance and did not allocate a specific portion to OHIP premiums.

The Board found no frustration of contract or unjust enrichment, and ordered the employers to remit the full amounts owed with interest.